G. SANTHOSH Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition styled Public Interest Litigation is grounded on allegations that:- the 2nd respondent created documents by forging letters of allotment/reconveyance, possession letter dated 21.8.1998 and registered sale deed dated 26.6.1998, as if executed by the 1st respondent-Bangalore Development Authority in short 'BDA', in favour of R. Rangaiah, father of the 2nd respondent; the 2nd respondent in the premise of the alleged Will dated 6.2.1998 executed by R. Rangaiah, secured transfer of khatha of the petition schedule immovable property, being site No. 2098, 'D' Block, 8th Main Road, II Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore -560 010 measuring East to west 45 feet, North to South 30 feet; the 2nd respondent conveyed the petition schedule property in favour of respondents 3 and 4 describing himself as absolute owner of the said site, under a sale deed dated 6.8.2012; and the purchasers secured necessary documentation from the 1st respondent based upon the said conveyance deed. According to the petitioner, who resides in a nearby locality, having applied to the 1st respondent under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was issued with a reply dated 14.2.2014 stating that since documents were not available, copies could not be furnished. It is the further allegation of the petitioner that respondents 2 to 4 colluded together and created documents to indicate absolute ownership of the property bearing No. 2099/A, 'D' Block, 8th Main Road, II Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. Petitioner claims to have lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police at Subramanyanagar Police Station on 10.6.2014, as also with Commissioner of Police on 11.6.2014, following which issued a legal notice dated 17.5.2014 to the 1st respondent. Hence, the following reliefs:

(2.) Petition is opposed by filing statement of objections of respondents 3 and 4 inter alia denying the allegations and contending that the petitioner did intend to purchase the petition schedule property from the 2nd respondent and when not successful, due to disappointment and vengeance brought the television media persons near the site in question, gave an interview to Samya New Channel and TV9 News Channel projecting that the property belonging to BDA/Government was grabbed by the respondents in connivance with the 2nd respondent and that the respondent being a professor in R.V. Engineering college and Engineer in Doordarshan purchased the disputed property at a throw away price. In addition it is stated that petitioner did make known of his intention to prefer a public interest litigation before this Court during the month of May 2014 and accordingly, issued legal notice on 23.5.2014 with a threat perspective. According to the respondents the transactions of sale are neither vitiated nor based upon fraudulent documents. The property in question shown as site No. 2099/A was not reconveyed since in the allotment ledger maintained by the 1st respondent, no site bearing such number is registered, while, site no: 2098 is shown to be vacant, and it was in that context, copies of documents in respect of site no. 2099/2014 were not made available. According to the respondents the entire case made out by the petitioner is misconceived on an erroneous understanding that the site purchased by the respondents is Site No. 2099/A, not reconveyed in favour of any persons as disclosed in the records maintained by the BDA.

(3.) The factual matrix, according to the said respondents is: